Canad. Math. Bull. Vol. 65 (2), 2022, pp.

345–360
http://dx.doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X
© Canadian Mathematical Society 2021

Every symplectic manifold is a (linear)

coadjoint orbit
Paul Donato and Patrick Iglesias-Zemmour

Abstract. We prove that every symplectic manifold is a coadjoint orbit of the group of automorphisms
of its integration bundle, acting linearly on its space of momenta, for any group of periods of the
symplectic form. This result generalizes the Kirilov–Kostant–Souriau theorem when the symplectic
manifold is homogeneous under the action of a Lie group and the symplectic form is integral.

1 Introduction
It is well known since Kostant [Kos70], Souriau [Sou70], and Kirillov [Kir74] that
a symplectic manifold (X, ω), homogeneous under the action of a Lie group, is
isomorphic—up to a covering—to a possibly affine coadjoint orbit.
It is less known that any symplectic manifold1 is isomorphic to a coadjoint orbit
of its group of symplectomorphisms (or Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms), possibly
affine [PIZ16]. This has been established, in particular, in the rigorous framework of
diffeology and uses essentially the notion of Moment Map for that category [PIZ10].
But this theorem still seems to lack something. Although this is not a fundamental
flaw, we would like to get rid of the affine action, defined by a twisted cocycle of
the automorphisms. We would prefer to identify the symplectic manifold with an
ordinary coadjoint orbit, that is an orbit of the usual linear coadjoint action.2 This
can be achieved by passing to a central extension of the group of automorphisms.
We recall that we are no longer in the classical framework but in diffeology and we
shall see that the difficulty to absorb this cocycle in an extension of the automorphisms
disappears in this category by the capacity to treat irrational tori. The fundamental
element is the integration bundle existing for any symplectic manifold, as it has been
established in the paper “La Trilogie du Moment” [PIZ95]. This is a principal fiber
bundle over the manifold, with group the torus of periods of the symplectic form,
quotient of the real line by the group of periods, i.e., the integrals of the two-form
on every two-cycle. This principal bundle comes equipped with a connection form,
with curvature the symplectic form. Of course, the torus of periods is almost never
a manifold, but it is still a nontrivial diffeological group [DI83, IZL90]. We establish
first the following:

Received by the editors December 9, 2019; revised November 29, 2020, accepted May 4, 2021.
Published online on Cambridge Core May 18, 2021.
AMS subject classification: 53D05, 58B99.
Keywords: Diffeology, symplectic geometry, quantization.
1
The manifolds are assumed to be connected, Hausdorff and second countable.
2
Thanks to François Ziegler who first suggested to make this improvement.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 346 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

Theorem 1 Let (X, ω) be a symplectic manifold. Let Pω be its group of periods and
Tω = R/Pω be its torus of periods. Let π∶ Y → X be an integration bundle equipped with
a connection form λ with curvature ω. Let Aut(Y, λ) be the identity component of the
group of automorphisms of the integration structure. Then, the kernel of the projection
pr∶ Aut(Y, λ) → Diff(X, ω) is reduced to the action of the torus Tω , and its image is
the group Ham(X, ω) of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. In other words, we get an exact
sequence of homomorphisms, which is a central extension:

1 Tω Aut(Y, λ) Ham(X, ω) 1.

The group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms is defined precisely in terms of dif-

feology in [PIZ13, Section 9.15]. Then, denoting by A∗ the space of momenta of the
group Aut(Y, λ), that is, its space of left-invariant one-forms, we prove the following
theorem which reveals the universal model of symplectic manifolds.
Theorem 2 The Moment Map μ Y ∶ Y → A∗ of the action of Aut(Y, λ) on (Y, dλ),
is equivariant with respect to the coadjoint action: μ Y (ϕ(y)) = Ad∗ (ϕ)(μ Y (y)) for
all ϕ ∈ Aut(Y, λ), and invariant by Tω . Its projection μ X ∶ X → A∗ is injective and
identifies X with the orbit O λ = μ Y (Y) = μ X (X). Therefore, every symplectic manifold
is a coadjoint orbit of a linear action of a diffeological group, at least Aut(Y, λ).
Note 1 The idea that every symplectic manifold is a coadjoint orbit of its group
of symplectomorphisms (or Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms) is not new. It appeared
already at an early age of symplectic mechanics, a few decades ago. It is mentioned for
example, in a functional analysis context, by Marsden and Weinstein in their paper
on Vlasov equation [MW82, Note 3, p. 398]. It was taken up later by Omohundro, a
Weinstein student, in his book on geometric perturbation theory in physics [Omo86,
p. 364]. What was already original in the first paper [PIZ16] was the rigorous
diffeology framework in which the result was proved, the role of the universal moment
map, the identification of Souriau’s cocycle of the action of the automorphisms and
the affine rather than linear action if the cocycle is not trivial. What is original in this
paper is that the affine coadjoint orbit is made linear anyway, by absorbing the cocycle
into a central extension of the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms thanks to the
integration bundle.
Note 2 We follow the vocabulary introduced in a previous work. We call parasym-
plectic form any closed two-form on a diffeological space; and a parasymplectic space
any diffeological space equipped with a parasymplectic form, which we denote in
general by (X, ω). We refer to the textbook [PIZ13] for all generic constructions in
diffeology.

2 Review of diffeological constructions

This universal model for symplectic manifolds builds on a few major constructions
established in previous works:
(1) The construction of the moment map for any parasymplectic form, on any
diffeological space for any smooth action of any diffeological group preserving
the parasymplectic form, in “Moment Map in Diffeology” [PIZ10].

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 347

(2) The general construction of the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms that

follows from this construction (op.cit. Section 9.2).
(3) The integration bundle of any parasymplectic form on manifold, in [PIZ95].
(4) The realisation of every symplectic manifolds as an affine coadjoint orbits of the
group of symplectomorphisms [PIZ16].
In what follows, we recall the basics of these main constructions which can be
found and are detailed in the three references given above.

2.1 The moment maps for parasymplectic spaces

First of all, let G be a diffeological group. We denote by G∗ its space of its momenta,
that is, the space of the left-invariant differential one-forms on G,
G∗ = {ε ∈ Ω 1 (G) ∣ L(g)∗ (ε) = ε, for all g ∈ G}.
Now, let (X, ω) be a parasymplectic space with a parasymplectic action of G on X. That
is, a smooth morphism ρ ∶ G → Diff(X, ω), denoted by g ↦ g X , where Diff(X, ω) ⊂
Diff(X) is the group of automorphisms of ω, equipped with the functional diffeology.
Hence, g X∗ (ω) = ω for all g ∈ G.
To understand the essential nature of the moment map, which is a map from X to
G∗ , it is good to consider the simplest case, and use it then as a guide to extend this
simple construction to the general case.
The simplest case. Consider the case where X is a manifold, and G is a Lie group. Let
us assume that ω is exact, ω = dα, and that α is also invariant by G. Then, the moment
map3 of the action of G on X is the map
μ ∶ X → G∗ defined by μ(x) = x̂ ∗ (α),
where x̂ ∶ G → X is the orbit map x̂(g) = g X (x).
As we can see, there is no obstacle, in this simple situation, to generalize, mutatis
mutandis, the Moment Map to a diffeological group acting by symmetries on a
diffeological parasymplectic space. However, as we know, not all closed two-forms are
exact and, even if they are exact they do not necessarily have an invariant primitive.
We shall see now how we can reduce the general case to the simple particular situation
by passing to the spaces of paths: Paths(X) = C∞ (R, X).
The general case. We consider a connected parasymplectic diffeological space
(X, ω), and a diffeological group G acting on X and preserving ω. Let K be the chain-
homotopy operator, defined in [PIZ13, Section 6.83]. We recall that
K∶ Ω k (X) → Ω k−1 (Paths(X))
is a linear operator which satisfies the property
(♡) d ○ K + K ○ d = 1̂∗ − 0̂∗ ,
where t̂(γ) = γ(t), with t ∈ R and γ ∈ Paths(X). Then, the differential one-form Kω,
defined on Paths(X), is related to ω by d[Kω] = (1̂∗ − 0̂∗ )(ω), and Kω is invariant
by G (op.cit. Section 6.84). Considering ω̄ = (1̂∗ − 0̂∗ )(ω) and ᾱ = Kω, we are in the

3
Precisely, one moment map, since they are defined up to a constant.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 348 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

simple case: ω̄ = d ᾱ with ᾱ invariant. We can apply the construction above and define
then the Moment Map of Paths by
Ψ ∶ Paths(X) → G∗ with Ψ(γ) = γ̂ ∗ (Kω),
and γ̂ ∶ G → Paths(X) is the orbit map γ̂(g) = g X ○ γ of a path γ. The moment of paths
is additive with respect to the concatenation [PIZ10, Section 4.4],
Ψ(γ ∨ γ ′ ) = Ψ(γ) + Ψ(γ′ ).
This paths Moment Map Ψ is equivariant by G, acting by composition on Paths(X),
and by coadjoint action on G∗ . Next, the Holonomy of the action of G on X is defined
by
 = {Ψ() ∣  ∈ Loops(X)} ⊂ G∗ ,
the Two-Points Moment Map is defined by pushing Ψ forward on X × X,
ψ∶ X × X → G∗/ with ψ(x, x ′ ) = class(Ψ(γ)),
where γ is a path connecting x to x ′ , and where class denotes the projection from G∗
onto its quotient G∗/. The holonomy  is the obstruction for the action of G to be
Hamiltonian. The additivity of Ψ becomes the Chasles’ cocycle condition
ψ(x, x ′ ) + ψ(x ′ , x ′′ ) = ψ(x, x ′′ ).
Let Ad ∶ G → Diff(G) be the adjoint action, Ad(g)∶ k ↦ gkg −1 . That induces on G∗ a
linear coadjoint action
Ad∗ ∶ G → L(G∗ ) with Ad∗ (g) ∶ ε ↦ Ad(g)∗ (ε) = Ad(g −1 )∗ (ε).
Next, the group  is made of closed forms, invariant by the linear coadjoint action.
Thus, the coadjoint action passes to the quotient G∗/ and we denote the quotient
action in the same way:
Ad∗ (g) ∶ class(ε) ↦ class(Ad∗ (g)(ε)).
The two-points Moment Map ψ is equivariant for the quotient coadjoint action. Note
that the quotient G∗/ is in all cases a diffeological Abelian group.
Now, because X is connected, there exists always a map
μ ∶ X → G∗/ such that ψ(x, x ′ ) = μ(x ′ ) − μ(x).
The solutions of this equation are given by
μ(x) = ψ(x 0 , x) + c,
where x 0 ∈ X is an arbitrary point and c ∈ G∗/ is any constant. This map is a priori
no longer equivariant with respect to Ad∗ on G∗/. Its lack of equivariance defines a
one-cocycle θ of G with values in G∗/:
μ(g(x)) = Ad∗ (g)(μ(x)) + θ(g),

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 349

with
θ(g) = ψ(x 0 , g(x 0 )) − Δc(g) and Δ(c) ∶ g ↦ Ad∗ (g)(c) − c
is the coboundary due to the constant c in the choice of μ. The cocycle θ defines then
a new action of G on G∗/, that is, a quotient affine action:
Ad∗θ (g) ∶ τ ↦ Ad∗ (g)(τ) + θ(g) for all τ ∈ G∗/.
The Moment Map μ is then equivariant with respect to this affine action:
μ(g(x)) = Ad∗θ (g)(μ(x)).
Note that, in particular, if G is transitive on X, then the image of the Moment Map μ
is an affine coadjoint orbit in G∗/.
This construction extends the Moment Map for {Manifolds} introduced by
Souriau in the 60s [Sou70] to the category {Diffeology}.
The group of all automorphisms of a parasymplectic space is naturally a diffeolog-
ical group, denoted by Diff(X, ω) or by Gω . The constructions above give the space
of momenta G∗ω , the universal4 path moment map Ψω , the universal holonomy ω ,
the universal two-points moment map ψ ω , the universal moment maps μ ω , and the
universal Souriau’s cocycles θ ω .

2.2 The case of a symplectic manifold

Let (X, ω) be a connected parasymplectic manifold. The value of the paths Moment
Map Ψω at the point p ∈ Paths(X) = C∞ (R, X), evaluated on the n-plot F ∶ U → Gω
is explicitely given by [PIZ10, Section 10.1]
1
(◊) Ψω (p)(F)r (δr) = ∫ ω p(t) ( ṗ(t), δ p(t)) dt,
0

where r ∈ U and δr ∈ Rn , δ p denotes the lifting in the tangent space TX of the path p,
defined by
∂F(r)(p(t))
(♡) δ p(t) = [D(F(r))(p(t))]−1 (δr) for all t ∈ R.
∂r
In that case, we have the following theorem, see [PIZ16] for example:

Theorem (P.I-Z) Let X be a connected Hausdorff manifold. A parasymplectic form ω

on X is symplectic if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:
(1) The manifold X is homogeneous under the action of Gω .
(2) The universal Moment Map μ ω ∶ X → G∗ω /ω is injective.
Hence, the Moment Map identifies the manifold X with a, a priori affine, (ω , θ ω )-
coadjoint orbit Oω of Gω ,
μ ω (X) = Oω ⊂ G∗ω /ω .

4
The adjective “universal” relates to the group Gω [PIZ10, Section 9].

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 350 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

The situation is summarized by the diagram

Gω

(♣) πX πO

X μω Oω

where π X (ϕ) = ϕ(x 0 ), πO (ϕ) = Ad∗θ (ϕ)(μ ω (x 0 )), for all ϕ ∈ Gω and x 0 ∈ X is any
base point. The projections π X is a subduction [Boo69, Don84], Oω is equipped with
the pushforward diffeology of Gω by πO , and μ ω is then a diffeomorphism.

2.3 Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms

In the construction of the Moment Map of a parasymplectic action of a diffeological

group G on (X, ω), the holonomy group  is the obstruction of the action of G to be
Hamiltonian.
Definition A parasymplectic action of a diffeological group G on (X, ω) is said to
be Hamiltonian if  = {0}.
Hence, the moment maps have their values in G∗ . We get then the following
theorem [PIZ10, Section 9.2].
Theorem (P.I-Z) Let (X, ω) be a connected parasymplectic diffeological space. There
exists a largest connected subgroup Ham(X, ω) ⊂ Diff(X, ω) whose action is Hamilto-
nian, that is, whose holonomy is trivial. The elements of Ham(X, ω) are called Hamil-
tonian diffeomorphisms. An action ρ of a diffeological group G on X is Hamiltonian if
and only if, restricted to the identity component of G, ρ takes its values in Ham(X, ω).
The group Ham(X, ω) is precisely built as follows. Let G○ω be the identity com-
̃ ○ω → G○ω be the universal covering. Since the
ponent of Gω = Diff(X, ω). Let π ∶ G
universal holonomy ω is made of closed momenta [PIZ10, Section 4.7], every γ ∈ ω
defines a unique homomorphism k(γ) from G ̃ ○ω to R such that π ∗ (γ) = d[k(γ)]
[PIZ10, Section 3.11]. Let
̂ ω = ⋂ ker(k(γ)),
H ̂ ○ω ),
then Ham(X, ω) = π(H
γ∈ω

where H ̂ ○ω ⊂ Hω is its identity component. The space of momenta and the universal
moment maps objects associated to Hω = Ham(X, ω) are denoted by: H∗ω , Ψ̄ω , ψ̄ ω ,
μ̄ ω , and θ̄ ω .

2.4 The integration bundle of a parasymplectic form

Let (X, ω) be a connected, Hausdorff and second countable parasymplectic manifold.

Let Pω its group of periods, that is,

Pω = {∫ ω ∣ σ ∈ H2 (X, Z)} ⊂ R.
σ

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 351

Since X is second countable, Pω is diffeogically discrete, that is, the diffeology induced
by the standard diffeology of R is the discrete diffeology. The plots are locally constant.
Let
Tω = R/Pω
be its torus of periods. Except in the case where the group of periods has only
one generator, the torus of periods is not a manifold but nevertheless, a nontrivial
diffeological group. See, for example, the paper on the irrational torus Tα = R/Z + αZ
[DI83], where α ∉ Q.
Then, we get the following theorem in [PIZ95, Theorem 1.5].

Theorem (P.I-Z) Let (X, ω) be a second countable Hausdorff parasymplectic mani-

fold. There exists always a Tω -principal fiber bundle π∶ Y → X equipped with a connec-
tion one-form λ with curvature ω. That is, π ∗ (ω) = dλ. Such integration bundles are
classified by the extension group Ext(H1 (X, Z), Pω ).

A connection one-form λ on Y is a Tω invariant calibrated one-form, that is,

τ Y∗ (λ) = λ for all τ ∈ Tω and for all y ∈ Y, ŷ∗ (λ) = θ, where ŷ∶ Tω → Y is the orbit
map ŷ(τ) = τ Y (y); and θ is the canonical one-form on Tω defined by class∗ (θ) = dt,
with class∶ R → Tω the projection, see [PIZ13, Section 8.37].

3 Exact sequence of automorphisms

For a symplectic manifold, the transition from an affine orbit to a linear orbit5 needs
to absorb the Souriau cocycle somewhere. We do it by building an extension of the
group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, associated with the integration bundle of the
symplectic form (Section 2.4).

3.1 The central extension of hamiltonian diffeomorphisms

Let (X, ω) be a symplectic manifold. Let Pω be its group of periods and Tω = R/Pω
be its torus of periods. Let π∶ Y → X be a Tω -principal integration fiber bundle, and λ
be its connection form. Let Aut(Y, λ) be the group of automorphisms of (Y, λ), that
is,
Aut(Y, λ) = {ϕ ∈ Diff(Y) ∣ ϕ∗ (λ) = λ and ∃ f ∈ Diff(X), π ○ ϕ = f ○ π}.
Actually, we reduce Aut(Y, λ) to its identity component.6 Then, the diffeomorphism
f belongs naturally to the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms Ham(X, ω). The
mapping η∶ ϕ ↦ f is then a surjective homomorphism. Its kernel is the torus of
periods Tω , and η is a central extension. This is summarized by the exact sequence:
η
1 Tω Aut(Y, λ) Ham(X, ω) 1.

5
We recall that we say “linear orbit” as a shortcut for “orbit of a linear action.”
6
We keep the same notation for the sake of simplicity.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 352 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

Note The integration bundles of a parasymplectic form being classified by the group
Ext(H1 (X, Z), Pω ), the theorem above applies to each of them indifferently. This had
been noticed in the special case of an integral form where Pω = aZ, for any a ∈ R,
in particular by Bertram Kostant. In this case, the integration bundle is called the
prequantization bundle. In the general case, Pω is dense in R and the integration
bundle is not a manifold.
It is remarkable too, that all this construction is purely diffeologial, involves only
differential forms and does not need tangent vectors or integration of vector fields.
That aspect of diffeology had been already underlined in the construction of the
Moment Map, in particular in [PIZ10].

Proof Let us begin by fixing our notation. The action of an element τ ∈ Tω on y ∈ Y

will be denoted indifferently by

τ⋅y or by τ Y (y).

Now, let ϕ ∈ Aut(Y, λ) and f = η(ϕ). Since f ○ π = π ○ ϕ, ϕ∗ (λ) = λ and π ∗ (ω) = dλ,
π being a subduction, we get f ∈ Diff(X, ω).
(A) Let us to prove that ker(η) = Tω , acting on Y by τ∶ y ↦ τ ⋅ y. Let ϕ ∈ ker(η),
that is, π ○ ϕ = π. Then, for all y ∈ Y, there exists a unique τ(y) ∈ Tω such that ϕ(y) =
τ(y) ⋅ y.
(a) Let us first check that τ∶ Y → Tω is smooth. Let r ↦ y r by a plot in Y, the
composite with ϕ gives the plot r ↦ τ(y r ) ⋅ y r . We need to prove that r ↦ τ(y r ) itself
is smooth. The pullback of π∶ Y → X by the plot r ↦ x r = π(y r ) is locally trivial, then
we can restrict these plots to a ball B above which the pullback

[r ↦ x r ]∗ (Y) = {(r, y) ∈ B × Y ∣ π(y) = x r }

is trivial. Any Tω -principal bundle isomorphism F from this pullback to the product
B × Tω writes F(r, y) = (r, t(r)(y)), and the smooth map t with values in Tω satisfies
the equivariance t(r)(τ ⋅ y) = τ ⋅ t(r)(y). Thus, r ↦ t(r)(y r ) is smooth as well as
r ↦ t(r)(τ(y r )(y r )) = τ(y r ) ⋅ t(r)(y r ). Hence, r ↦ τ(y r ) is smooth. Therefore, the
function τ is smooth.
(b) Let us prove now that the function τ is constant. The invariance ϕ∗ (λ) = λ
implies λ(r ↦ τ(y r ) ⋅ y r ) = λ(r ↦ y r ), for all plots r → y r . That is, thanks to the
partial derivatives formula [PIZ13, Section 8.37 ♣]

λ(r ↦ y r ) = λ(r ↦ τ(y r ) ⋅ y r )

= λ(r ↦ y r ) + τ ∗ (θ)(r ↦ y r ),

where θ is the canonical one-form on Tω . Thus, τ ∗ (θ) = 0. Then τ is constant. Hence,

ker η = Tω .
(B) Let us prove that η takes its values in Ham(X, ω). That is, that the holonomy
group of Aut(Y, λ) vanishes when acting on (X, ω) through the action

ϕ X (x) = f (x) with f = η(ϕ).

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 353

We shall denote by A∗ the space of momenta of Aut(Y, λ). The Moment Map ΨX of
the action of Aut(Y, λ) on (X, ω) is given, according to previous notations by:
ΨX ∶ Paths(X) → A∗ with Ψ(γ) = γ̂ ∗ (KX (ω)),
where γ̂∶ ϕ ↦ f ○ γ is the orbit map. Let us prove now that ΨX () = ˆ∗ (KX (ω)) = 0,
for all  ∈ Loops(X).
Let us recall, first of all, that the principal fiber bundle π ∶ Y → X induces, in
particular, a subduction of loops spaces:
π∗ ∶ Loops(Y) → Loops(X) by pushforward π∗ () = π ○ 
see [PIZ13, Section 8.32] and [PIZ19]. That is, every plot r ↦ r in Loops(X) has a
local smooth lifting r ↦ r , everywhere, in Loops(Y). Note that we shall underline the
paths in Y, to distinguish them from paths in X. Now, let  and  such that π ○  = .
ˆ
We have (ϕ) ˆ
= f ○  = f ○ π ○  = π ○ ϕ ○  = π ○ (ϕ), that is, ˆ = π∗ ○ .
ˆ Thus,
ˆ ∗ (KX (ω)) = ˆ∗ ((π∗ )∗ (KX (ω))).
ˆ∗ (KX (ω)) = (π ○ )
Then, let us recall the variance7 of the chain-homotopy operators KX and KY , relative
to X and Y [PIZ13, Section 6.84], summarized by the commutative diagram:
KY
Ω k (Y) Ω k−1 (Paths(Y))
π∗ (π ∗ )∗
KX
Ω k (X) Ω k−1 (Paths(X))

We have then:
(π∗ )∗ (KX (ω)) = KY (π ∗ (ω)) = KY (dλ).
Hence:
∗ ∗
ˆ ((π∗ )∗ KX (ω)) = ˆ (KY (dλ)).
Thus:
∗
ΨX () = ˆ∗ (KX (ω)) = ˆ (KY (dλ)) = ΨY (),
where ΨY is the Moment Map for the action of Aut(Y, dλ) on (Y, dλ). Note that, that
could have been deduced directly from [PIZ13, Section 9.13]. Now, according to the
fundamental property of the chain-homotopy operator, we have:
∗ ∗ ∗
ˆ (KY (dλ)) + ˆ (d(KY (λ))) = ˆ (1̂∗ (λ) − 0̂∗ (λ))
ˆ ∗ (λ) − (0̂ ○ )
= (1̂ ○ ) ˆ ∗ (λ)
= 0,
because  is a loop. Therefore,
∗ ∗
ˆ (KY (dλ)) = −d(ˆ (KY (λ))).

7
The way a quantity varies.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 354 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

For every plot, r ↦ ϕ r in Aut(Y, λ), for all r in its domain:

∗
ˆ (KY (λ))(ϕ r ) = KY (λ)(ϕ r ○ ) = ∫ λ = ∫ ϕ∗r (λ) = ∫ λ .
ϕ r ∗ ()  

∗
Hence, ˆ (KY (λ)) is constant, its derivative vanishes and therefore,
∗
(◊) ΨX () = ˆ∗ (KX (ω)) = ˆ (KY (dλ)) = 0.
And that complete to prove that η∶ Aut(Y, λ) → Diff(X, ω) takes its values in
Ham(X, ω).
(C) Let us show now that Tω ⊂ Aut(Y, λ) is central, that is, η∶ Aut(Y , λ) →
Ham(X, ω) is a central extension. Let ϕ ∈ Aut(Y, λ). We have seen that Tω = ker(η).
Thus, for all τ ∈ Tω there exists τ ′ ∈ Tω such that τ ′ = ϕ ○ τ ○ ϕ−1 . Obviously,
h ϕ ∶ τ ↦ τ ′ defines a group isomorphism of Tω : h ϕ (τ 1 τ 2 ) = h ϕ (τ 1 )h ϕ (τ 2 ), and
h ϕ (τ)−1 = ϕ−1 ○ τ −1 ○ ϕ.
But ϕ is connected to the identity map 1Y via a smooth path s ↦ ϕ s ∈ Aut(Y, λ),
defined on an open interval I containing [0, 1], with ϕ 0 = 1Y and ϕ 1 = ϕ. That defines
a smooth path of isomorphisms h ϕ s = ϕ s ○ τ ○ ϕ−1 s . Let us denote h s for h ϕ s . The map
(s, t) ↦ h s (class(t)) is a plot defined on I × R, in Tω . By the monodromy theorem
[PIZ13, Section 8.25], it has a global lifting (s, t) ↦ Hs (t), defined on I × R, which is
a smooth plot in R. And the lift is unique with H0 (0) = 0.

H
I × R ∋ (s, x) Hs (x) ∈ R

1 × class class
I × Tω ∋ (s, class(x)) h s (class(x)) = class(Hs (x)) ∈ Tω
h

For every parameter s, the restriction Hs ∶ R → R is a smooth lifting of the

isomorphism h s ∶ Tω → Tω . Thus, up to a constant b s ∈ R, Hs is a smooth morphism
from R to R. Hence, Hs (x) = a s x + b s , where s ↦ a s and s ↦ b s are smooth, and
a s ≠ 0 since Hs lifts an isomorphism. Now, for all s ∈ I, all x, x ′ ∈ R, h s (class(x +
x ′ )) = h s (class(x)) + h s (class(x ′ )), that is, class(Hs (x + x ′ )) = class(Hs (x)) +
class(Hs (x ′ )), i.e., a s (x + x ′ ) + b s = a s x + b s + a s x ′ + b s + p, and then b s ∈ Pω for all
s ∈ Pω . Since s ↦ b s is smooth and Pω is (diffeologically) discrete in R, b s is constant
and equal to b 0 which is 0. Thus, Hs (x) = a s x. Next, h s (class(x)) = class(Hs (x))
implies that, for all p ∈ Pω there exists p′ ∈ Pω such that Hs (x + p) = Hs (x) + p′ .
That is, a s (x + p) = a s x + p′ , and then a s p ∈ Pω for all p ∈ Pω . Again, since Pω is
discrete in R, s ↦ a s is constant and the lifting H writes Hs (x) = ax, for some number
a ≠ 0. Finally, since H 0 lifts the identity h 0 = 1T ω by a morphism, H0 (x) = x and a = 1.
Therefore, Hs (x) = x for all s and h s (τ) = τ, that is, ϕ ○ τ Y = τ Y ○ ϕ, and the extension
η∶ Aut(Y, λ) → Ham(X, ω) is central.
(D) Let us show finally that η ∶ Aut(Y, λ) → Ham(X, ω) is surjective. Let f ∈
Ham(X, ω). There exists a smooth path t ↦ f t ∈ Ham(X, ω), such that f 0 = 1 X and
f 1 = f . We define, for all x ∈ X, the path γ X in X by γ x (t) = f t (x). It satisfies γ x (0) = x
and γ x (1) = f (x). The map x ↦ γ x is smooth.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 355

Given any y ∈ Y and x = π(y) ∈ X, we will denote by γ the unique horizontal

y
lifting of γ x with origin y. Moreover, the map y ↦ γ is smooth and equivariant under
y
the action of Tω [PIZ13, Section 8.32]. We define then:

ϕ(y) = γ (1) and ϕ ∈ C∞ (Y) (op.cit.)

y

The map ϕ is a smooth lifting of f, that is, π ○ ϕ = f ○ π. Moreover, the equivariance

of γ by Tω also implies that τ Y ○ ϕ = ϕ ○ τ Y for all τ ∈ Tω . If ϕ is equivariant, it has
y
no reason to preserve the contact form λ. We shall show then that there exists a map
τ ∈ C∞ (Y, Tω ) such that

Φ∶ y ↦ τ(y) ⋅ ϕ(y),

which is still a smooth lifting of f and preserves the contact form λ, that is, Φ ∈
Aut(Y, λ). Thanks to the partial derivatives formula (op. cit.), for any plot r ↦ y r of
Y, we get:

Φ∗ (λ)(r ↦ y r ) = λ(r ↦ τ(y r ) ⋅ ϕ(y r ))

= θ(r ↦ τ(y r )) + λ(r ↦ ϕ(y r ))
= τ ∗ (θ)(r ↦ y r ) + ϕ∗ (λ)(r ↦ y r ).

That is, Φ∗ (λ) = τ ∗ (θ) + ϕ∗ (λ). Consider now

Φ∗ (λ) − λ = τ ∗ (θ) + β with β = ϕ∗ (λ) − λ. ∎

Lemma 1 The one-form β is the pullback of a closed one-form ε on X: β = π ∗ (ε).

◂ Let us check that β is closed: d(ϕ∗ (λ) − λ) = ϕ∗ (dλ) − dλ = ϕ∗ (π ∗ ω) − π ∗ ω =

π ○ ϕ)∗ ω − π ∗ ω = ( f ○ π)∗ ω − π ∗ ω = π ∗ f ∗ ω − π ∗ ω = 0. Also, β is invariant by Tω :
τ ∗ (β) = τ ∗ (ϕ∗ (λ) − λ) = (ϕ ○ τ)∗ (λ) − τ ∗ (λ) = (τ ○ ϕ)∗ (λ) − λ = ϕ∗ (τ ∗ (λ)) −
λ = ϕ∗ (λ) − λ = β. Moreover, β vanishes vertically. Indeed, let us first remark that
τ ○ ϕ = ϕ ○ τ, for all τ ∈ Tω , implies ϕ ○ ŷ = ŷ′ , for all y ∈ Y and y′ = ϕ(y). Then,
ŷ∗ (β) = ŷ∗ (ϕ∗ (λ) − λ) = ŷ∗ (ϕ∗ (λ) − ŷ∗ (λ) = (ϕ ○ ŷ)∗ (λ) − ŷ∗ (λ) = ( ŷ′ )∗ (λ) −
ŷ∗ (λ) = θ − θ = 0. Thus λ′ = λ + β is a new connection one-form, the difference β is
then the pullback of a one-form on X, according to [PIZ13, Section 8.37, Note]. ▸

Lemma 2 The one-form ε is exact: ε = dν, ν ∈ C∞ (X, R).

◂ Indeed, considering the fundamental property of the chain-homotopy operator

K ○ d + d ○ K = 1̂∗ − 0̂∗ (Section 2.1 ♡), on the one hand, and the vanishing of the
holonomy of the action of Aut(Y, λ) on Y (Section 3.1 Proof ♢) on the other, we get,
∗ ∗ ∗
0 = ΨX () = ˆ∗ (KX (ω)) = ˆ (KY (dλ)) = −ˆ (d(KY (λ))) = −d(ˆ (KY (λ))),

for all  ∈ Loops(X) and all  ∈ Loops(Y) over , because 1̂ ○ ∗ = 0̂ ○ ∗ . Now, eval-
uating the Moment Map on the plot t ↦ ϕ t connecting 1Y to ϕ, using  = π ○  and

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 356 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

ϕ t ○  = ϕ t∗ (), we get:
∗
d(ˆ (KY (λ))(t ↦ ϕ t )) = d(KY (λ)(t ↦ ϕ t∗ ())) = d [t ↦ ∫ λ]
ϕ t∗ ()

= d [t ↦ ∫ ϕ∗t (λ)] = ∗
∫ ϕ (λ) − ∫ λ = ∗
∫ ϕ (λ) − λ
   

∗
= ∫ β = ∫ π ε = ∫ ε.
  

Thus, for all  ∈ Loops(X), ∫ ε = 0. Therefore, according to [PIZ13, Section 6.89],


there exists ν ∈ C ∞ (X, R) such that ε = dν. ▸
We can now complete to prove that Φ ∈ Aut(Y, λ). Indeed, let ν = ν ○ π ∈
C∞ (Y, R). Let us define τ ∈ C ∞ (Y, Tω ) by τ = −class ○ ν = −class ○ ν ○ π, where
class∶ R → Tω . Hence:

τ ∗ (θ) = −π ∗ (ν∗ (class∗ (θ))) = π ∗ (ν∗ (dt)) = −π ∗ (dν) = −π ∗ (ε) = −β.

Thus τ ∗ (θ) = −ϕ∗ (λ) + λ. Therefore:

Φ∗ (λ) = τ ∗ (θ) + ϕ∗ (λ) = −ϕ∗ (λ) + λ + ϕ∗ (λ) = λ , and Φ ∈ Aut(Y, λ).

So far, we have proved that η ∶ Aut(Y, λ) → Ham(X, ω) is surjective, we have to

prove then that it is a subduction [PIZ13, Section 1.46]. For this, we need to check
that any plot P∶ r ↦ f r in Ham(X, ω), admits a local lifting P̃ such that P =locally
η ○ P̃, everywhere. Thanks to the functional diffeology and to both subductions
π∗ ∶ Paths(Y) → Paths(X) [PIZ13, Section 8.32] and π∶ Y → X, the map (r, t, x) ↦
f r,t (x) is smooth and then admits a smooth lifting on Y. Thus, for x = π(y), the time
t = 1 of this lifting defines the smooth family ϕ r (y) of diffeomorphisms, the shift by
τ ∈ C∞ (Y , Tω ) preserves the smoothness of r ↦ Φ r ∈ Aut(Y, λ).

4 Moment map of the universal extension bundle automorphisms

In this section, we will show how the sympletic manifold (X, ω) identifies, through
the Moment Map of the Hamiltonian action of Aut(Y, ω) with an orbit of this group
for its linear coadjoint action on its space of momenta. We again emphazise the fact
that this result generalizes the Kostant–Kirilov–Souriau theorem when the symplectic
manifold is homogeneous under the action of a Lie group, and the symplectic form
is integral. In the nonintegral but homogeneous case, the optimal result in the
category of manifolds states that the symplectic manifold is, up to a covering, an
affine coadjoint orbit of the group. That result had been extended to the group of all
Hamiltonian diffeomorphism in [PIZ16].

4.1 Sympectic manifolds as (linear) coadjoint orbits

Let (X, ω) be a symplectic manifold, and as it is described in (Section 3.1), let Pω be its
group of periods, π∶ Y → X be an integration bundle with connection λ, and Aut(Y, λ)
be the group of automorphisms of the integration structure.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 357

Let A∗ be the space of Momenta of Aut(Y, λ), that is, the space of left-invariant
one-forms on Aut(Y, λ). The action of Aut(Y, λ) on Y has a moment map, relatively
to the parasymplectic form dλ, given by
μ Y ∶ Y → A∗ , with μ Y (y) = ŷ∗ (λ).
Then,
(1) The moment μ Y descends to μ X ∶ X → A∗ , μ Y = μ X ○ π.
(2) μ Y is equivariant under the coadjoint action of Aut(Y, λ).
(3) μ X is injective.
(4) μ X defines a diffeomorphism from X onto the coadjoint orbit
A∗ ⊃ O λ = μ Y (Y) = μ X (X).

Therefore, the symplectic manifold X inherits the structure of a coadjoint orbit. And
this is a universal characterization of symplectic manifolds:
Every Symplectic Manifold is a (Linear) Coadjoint Orbit.
This complements the statement made in [PIZ16] that Every Symplectic Manifold
is a (Affine) Coadjoint Orbit of its group of Symplectomorphisms.

Note In case of a transitive action of a Lie subgroup G ⊂ Gω , the moment of the

action of G is the projection of the moment relative to Gω .

Proof Let us begin by checking that μ Y is constant on each fiber. The action of
Tω is central in Aut(Y, λ), so for any τ ∈ Tω , for all y ∈ Y and for all ϕ ∈ Aut(Y, λ) we
have: τ̂ ⋅ y(ϕ) = ϕ(τ ⋅ y) = τ ⋅ ϕ(y) = τ ⋅ ( ŷ(ϕ)), hence τ̂ ⋅ y = τ ○ ŷ. Thus, μ Y (τ ⋅ y) =
(τ̂ ⋅ y)∗ (λ) = (τ ○ ŷ)∗ (λ) = ŷ∗ (τ ∗ (λ)) = ŷ∗ (λ) = μ Y (y).
Now, let us denote, for all ϕ, ψ in Aut(Y, λ), R(ϕ)(ψ) = ψ ○ ϕ−1 , the right
action of the group on its momenta. Then, the equivariance follows from:
̂ ∗ (λ) = ( ŷ ○ R(ϕ−1 )∗ (λ) = R(ϕ−1 )∗ ( ŷ∗ (λ)) = R(ϕ−1 )∗ (μ Y (y)) =
μ Y (ϕ(y)) = ϕ(y)
R(ϕ−1 )∗ L(ϕ−1 )∗ (μ Y (y)) = Ad(ϕ−1 )∗ (μ Y (y)) = Ad(ϕ)∗ (μ Y (y)).
Finally, pushing forward the moment maps [PIZ13, Sections 9.12 and 9.13] leads
to the commutative diagram below, where μ̄ X is the Moment Map for the group
Ham(X, ω), and H∗ denotes its space of momenta.
μY
Y A∗
μX
π η∗

X μ̄ X
H∗

The Moment Map μ̄ X is known to be injective [PIZ16], as well as η∗ since η is a

subduction (Section 3.1, Proof (C)). Hence, μ X = η∗ ○ μ̄ X is injective and a subduction
on O λ = μ Y (Y). Therefore, μ X is a diffeomorphism from X to O λ = μ Y (Y), equipped
with the quotient diffeology of Aut(Y, λ) by the stabilizer of any point y ∈ Y. ∎

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 358 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

4.2 The case of a lie group action

For the reader who missed that point, let us show first how the moment map in
diffeology [PIZ10] generalizes the definition given originally by Souriau [Sou70]. Let
(X, ω) be a symplectic manifold and let G be a connected Lie group acting on X and
preserving ω. In that case, the space of momenta G∗ is the dual of the Lie algebra G,
represented by the space of invariant vector fields, or equivalently, by the set of one-
parameter subgroups. Let h∶ s ↦ exp(sZ) be a one-parameter subgroups, Z belonging
to the tangent space at the identity identified with G. Coming back to the expression
of the path moment map Ψ, the variation (Section 2.2 ♡) becomes, for δs = 1,
∂ exp(sZ)(p(t))
δ p(t) = [D(exp(sZ)))(p(t))]−1
∂s
∂ exp(sZ)(p(t))
= ∣ s=0
∂s
= ZX (p(t)),

where ZX is the infinitesimal action of h on X. Thus, the expression of the path-

moment map (Section 2.2 ♢) writes
1
Ψω (p)(h)s (1) = ∫ ω p(t) ( ṗ(t), ZX (p(t))) dt.
0

The classical moment map μ is defined in [Sou70, Section 11.7], as a solution, at least
locally, of the differential equation

ω(ZX (x)) = −d(μ(x) ⋅ Z).

We assume now that μ is defined globally, that is, the action of G is Hamiltonian. Thus,
1 ∂μ(x) ⋅ Z d p(t)
Ψω (p)(h)s (1) = ∫ ∣ ( ) dt = (μ(x ′ ) − μ(x)) ⋅ Z.
0 ∂x x=p(t)
dt

Hence, Ψ(p) = ψ(x, x ′ ) = μ(x ′ ) − μ(x). Therefore, since this equation has a unique
solution, up to a constant, the moment map in diffeology coincides with the classical
moment map when X is a manifold and G is a Lie group.
Now, let us assume that the action of G on X is transitive. Souriau proved in
[Sou70, Section 11.38] that the moment map is a covering onto its image. As it is
explicitly shown in the example of the “Cylinder and SL(2, R)” [PIZ16, Section 7],
this covering can be nontrivial. The group SL(2, R) acts transitively on the cylinder
R2 − {0} preserving the symplectic form Surf = dx ∧ d y. And the moment map is
given by
1
μ(z)(Fσ ) = Surf(z, σ z) × dt,
2
where z = (x, y) ∈ R2 − {0}, Fσ = [s ↦ exp(sσ)] is the one-parameter group defined
by σ ∈ sl(2, R), the Lie algebra of SL(2, R), vector space of real 2 × 2 traceless matrices.
We have clearly μ(z) = μ(−z).

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Every symplectic manifold is a (linear) coadjoint orbit 359

So, why is there a discrepancy between the Hamiltonian Lie group situation, where
the moment map is a covering but may not be injective, and the full Hamiltonian
group, for which the moment map is injective? As we can see in [PIZ16, Section 3 Proof
A’], a key ingredient for the injectivity of the universal moment map is the existence
of compactly supported functions that separate points. These are the Hamiltonian
functions of the one-parameter groups generated by their gradient, against which the
moment map is tested. In this example, in particular, the Hamiltonian functions of the
one-parameter subgroups of SL(2R) are exactly the functions f σ ∶ z ↦ μ(z)(Fσ ), for
all σ ∈ sl(2, R), and they do not separate opposite points. So, with a Lie group we may
not have enough hamiltonian functions to separate the points of the symplectic man-
ifold; this does not happen with the whole group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms.

5 Conclusion
This paper answers the question of the ontological nature of symplectic manifolds, if
we can use such a big word. But that question has indeed arised in social networks,
for example in mathoverflow.net [Com17]. That is a good justification a posteriori of
this work.
As we have seen in this construction, for a symplectic manifold, to pass from
an orbit of the affine action of the Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, to an orbit of a
linear action needs the integration of the Souriau cocycle. This integration is done by
considering the integration bundle of the symplectic manifold, which adds a floor to
the construction (art. 2.2, ♣) and is summarized in the following diagram (♠). We
have denoted by G λ the group of automorphisms of the integration structure, and by
πO the subduction from G λ onto its orbit.

Gλ

πY πO

(♠) μY
Y Oλ

π μX

It is important to emphasize that the key construction to passing from an affine coad-
joint orbit to a linear one is the integration bundle, and this integration bundle always
exists only because diffeology deals correctly with irrational tori. The irrationality of
the torus of periods is indeed a real challenge for any general differential frameworks.
Think for example
√ of the simple product S2 × S2 , equipped
√ with the symplectic form
ω = Surf ⊕ 2 Surf. Its group of periods Pω = Z + 2 Z ⊂ R is dense and its torus of
periods not Hausdorff. It admits however an integration principal bundle with group
T√2 equipped with a connection form λ of curvature ω.

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press

 360 P. Donato and P. Iglesias-Zemmour

Acknowledgment The authors thank the anonymous referees for their suggestions
that helped us to improve our paper.

References
[Boo69] W. M. Boothby, Transitivity of the automorphisms of certain geometric structures. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 137(1969), 93–100.
[Don84] P. Donato, Revêtement et groupe fondamental des espaces différentiels homogènes. Thèse de
doctorat d’état, Université de Provence, Marseille, 1984.
[DI83] P. Donato and P. Iglesias, Exemple de groupes différentiels: flots irrationnels sur le tore,
Preprint CPT-83/P.1524. Centre de Physique Théorique, Marseille, July 1983.
http://math.huji.ac.il/~piz/documents/EDGDFISLT.pdf
[Com17] https://mathoverflow.net/questions/147395/
[IZL90] P. Iglesias and G. Lachaud, Espaces différentiables singuliers et corps de nombres algébriques.
Ann. Inst. Fourier 40(1990), no. 1, 723–737.
[PIZ95] P. Iglesias-Zemmour, La Trilogie du moment. Ann. Inst. Fourier 45(1995), no. 3, 825–857.
[PIZ10] P. Iglesias-Zemmour, The moment maps in diffeology. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 207(2010),
no. 972.
[PIZ13] P. Iglesias-Zemmour, Diffeology. AMS Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 185, 2013.
[PIZ16] P. Iglesias-Zemmour, Every symplectic manifold is a coadjoint orbit. Proceedings of Frontiers
of Fundamental Physics 14—Proceedings of Sciences (FFP14), vol. 224(2016) pp. 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.22323/1.224.0141
[PIZ19] P. Iglesias-Zemmour, Differential of holonomy for torus bundles. Blog Post (2019).
http://math.huji.ac.il/~piz/documents/DBlog-EX-DOHFTB.pdf
[Kir74] A. A. Kirillov, Elements de la théorie des représentations. MIR Ed, Moscow, Russia, 1974.
[Kos70] B. Kostant, Orbits and quantization theory. In: Proceedings of International Congress of
Mathematicians, Vol. 2, Nice, France, 1970, pp. 395–400.
[MW82] J. Marsden and A. Weinstein, The hamiltonian structure of the maxwell-vlasov equations.
Physica D. 4(1982), 394–406.
[Omo86] S. M. Omohundro, Geometric perturbation theory in physics. World Scientific, 1986.
https://doi.org/10.1142/0287
[Sou70] J.-M. Souriau, Structure des systèmes dynamiques. Dunod Ed, Paris, 1970.
Institut de Mathématiques de Marseille, Aix-Marseille Université, 3 Place Victor-Hugo, 13331 Marseille
Cedex 3, France
e-mail: paul.donato@univ-amu.fr
Einstein Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram,
9190401 Jerusalem, Israel
e-mail: piz@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://math.huji.ac.il/~piz

https://doi.org/10.4153/S000843952100031X Published online by Cambridge University Press